Share this story

Congressional Democrats seeking to reinstate net neutrality rules are still 46 votes short of getting the measure through the House of Representatives.

The US Senate voted last month to reverse the Federal Communications Commission's repeal of net neutrality rules, with all members of the Democratic caucus and three Republicans voting in favor of net neutrality.

Further Reading

A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a House vote on the same net neutrality bill, and 218 votes would also be enough to pass the measure. So far, the petition has signatures from 172 representatives, all Democrats. That number hasn't changed in two weeks.

"We're 46 [signatures] away from being able to force a vote on the resolution to restore the Open Internet Order," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) tweeted yesterday.

Republicans have a 235-193 majority in the House. You can see which representatives haven't signed the petition at this page maintained by net neutrality advocacy group Fight for the Future. Several groups including Fight for the Future held an "advocacy day" yesterday to urge lawmakers to support the petition.

California net neutrality bill

Another major legislative debate on net neutrality is happening in the California state legislature. A bill to impose strict net neutrality rules passed in the California Senate but was gutted by State Assembly lawmakers last week.

Further Reading

The gutted version of the bill was approved yesterday by the Assembly's Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, but this was mainly a procedural move. Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the bill author, "asked the Privacy Committee to move the bill forward to allow negotiations to continue regarding restoring the protections in the original bill," his office said.

"To be clear, if the bill ultimately remains in its current form, I will withdraw it, as I have no desire to pass a fake net neutrality bill," Wiener said. "But my sincere hope is that we will be able to amend it in the near future back into a strong form."

I don't know that this needs to go any further than it already has. The democrats have a soft procedural roll they can point to to support their position that Republican [X] opposed network neutrality and supported its removal. That was the most they could reasonably expect out of this process, right?

We all knew this was the inevitable outcome of this effort but this is going to be a long term effort to overcome it and realistically, the earliest possible chance is in 2020. Maybe once trump is (hopefully) gone, there might be a few Republicans willing to jump from the official party line. Maybe.

The gutted version of the bill was approved yesterday by the Assembly's Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, but this was mainly a procedural move. Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the bill author, "asked the Privacy Committee to move the bill forward to allow negotiations to continue regarding restoring the protections in the original bill," his office said.

"To be clear, if the bill ultimately remains in its current form, I will withdraw it, as I have no desire to pass a fake net neutrality bill," Wiener said. "But my sincere hope is that we will be able to amend it in the near future back into a strong form."

This is why the doom-and-gloom in all the coverage of CA's NN bill was counterproductive. The committee's actions were bad and deserved to be called out, but that wasn't the end of the process and there's clearly runway to get the original bill passed. Don't give up, and don't buy in to the false narrative that the Democratic party is the same as the Republicans. Primary out the bad apples with a -D after their name, but in general elections support the Democrats because by and large they work for ordinary Americans.

Can you realistically rule out that the solid (yet notably not complete) Democratic vote for this issues is not just largely the result of partisan politics? With the current political climate, I think the vote might swing entirely the other way if Trump were to come out in favor of Net Neutrality...

Even if their votes were partisan, this is a firmly Republican practice, a pretty obvious abuse of the system, and it's the reason that this never even made it to a real vote in the House.

As others have said there's no surprise here. That doesn't change the fact that everyone who did not sign this should immediately be removed from office. Of course that won't happen, but can always hope their constituents will wise up and figure out just how badly this is going to screw us all over.

We all knew this was the inevitable outcome of this effort but this is going to be a long term effort to overcome it and realistically, the earliest possible chance is in 2020. Maybe once trump is (hopefully) gone, there might be a few Republicans willing to jump from the official party line. Maybe.

So, don't forget....VOTE!

Money nullifies votes.

No matter who is on the ballot, the voters have no control over the legislative agenda once the election is over, the wealthy donors do.

Until that changes, whomever is placed into office is beholden to money from a few, not the people who elected them.

We've reverted back to when only white property owners could vote. Now that the charade of "voting rights" is in place, the same restrictive process is still at work by hijacking the legislative agenda by unchecked "donations".

The gutted version of the bill was approved yesterday by the Assembly's Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee, but this was mainly a procedural move. Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), the bill author, "asked the Privacy Committee to move the bill forward to allow negotiations to continue regarding restoring the protections in the original bill," his office said.

"To be clear, if the bill ultimately remains in its current form, I will withdraw it, as I have no desire to pass a fake net neutrality bill," Wiener said. "But my sincere hope is that we will be able to amend it in the near future back into a strong form."

This is why the doom-and-gloom in all the coverage of CA's NN bill was counterproductive. The committee's actions were bad and deserved to be called out, but that wasn't the end of the process and there's clearly runway to get the original bill passed. Don't give up, and don't buy in to the false narrative that the Democratic party is the same as the Republicans. Primary out the bad apples with a -D after their name, but in general elections support the Democrats because by and large they work for ordinary Americans.

Can you realistically rule out that the solid (yet notably not complete) Democratic vote for this issue is not largely the result of partisan politics? With the current political climate, I think the vote might swing entirely the other way if Trump were to come out in favor of Net Neutrality...

What a load of bullshit. Did Democrats rise up and demand all immigrants and their families be separated and imprisoned after Trump signed his "stop separating families because it makes me look bad" EO?

Can you realistically rule out that the solid (yet notably not complete) Democratic vote for this issue is not largely the result of partisan politics? With the current political climate, I think the vote might swing entirely the other way if Trump were to come out in favor of Net Neutrality...

You know how, in the old days, Caesar would temporarily change someone's screen name or custom title when they were being particularly obnoxious? We need to change this poster's title to Projector.

Can you realistically rule out that the solid (yet notably not complete) Democratic vote for this issue is not largely the result of partisan politics? With the current political climate, I think the vote might swing entirely the other way if Trump were to come out in favor of Net Neutrality...

What a load of bullshit. Did Democrats rise up and demand all immigrants and their families be separated and imprisoned after Trump signed his "stop separating families because it makes me look bad" EO?

Whenever someone says they are both the same I always ask, do you mean all policies stated publicly, or the specifics of a corporate agenda. One of those ill agree with, and you can guess which one.

Well, the 3 Dems from Colorado are signed on and no surprise no Reps.The one possible flip this year is for Mike Coffman's seat. I hope the Dem candidate slams him hard for being against internet freedom.Unfortunately, we only have 3 Dems out of 7 reps.

"So what are the real stakes as Congress considers a partisan Democratic effort to re-impose the Obama public utility order? Taxes and fees. A lot of them. Internet services are protected by federal law from state, local, and federal taxes, but the Title II order reclassified broadband Internet as a phone service which enjoys no such protection.

"The FCC has already decided to boost E-Rate spending by $1.5 billion per year, and it will soon dramatically expand the Lifeline program to subsidize broadband." ......."The money to fund this spending spree will come from a broadband tax. The only question is when". <Pai said>

"Voters should keep in mind what this is really about if they don't want to wake up one day to a bunch of expensive new Democratic Internet taxes. And Republican members of Congress who might be tempted to cave to the dishonest net neutrality noise machine should be more worried about what constituents will think when they see how much it ends up costing them".

We all knew this was the inevitable outcome of this effort but this is going to be a long term effort to overcome it and realistically, the earliest possible chance is in 2020. Maybe once trump is (hopefully) gone, there might be a few Republicans willing to jump from the official party line. Maybe.

So, don't forget....VOTE!

Broadband monopolies overwhelmingly involve transferring money from rural Republican states to already rich people primarily in Urban states. So it should absolutely be possible, except for propaganda.

But these Republicans aren't representing their constituents, they're representing shareholders.

See, it only is considered good trolling when it can't be objectively measured

Quote:

A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a House vote on the same net neutrality bill, and 218 votes would also be enough to pass the measure. So far, the petition has signatures from 172 representatives, all Democrats. That number hasn't changed in two weeks.

Quote:

Republicans have a 235-193 majority in the House.

So while 21 Democrats didn't vote for it, 235 Republicans didn't vote for it either, making them at least 10x worse in this situation.

See, it only is considered good trolling when it can't be objectively measured

Quote:

A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a House vote on the same net neutrality bill, and 218 votes would also be enough to pass the measure. So far, the petition has signatures from 172 representatives, all Democrats. That number hasn't changed in two weeks.

See, it only is considered good trolling when it can't be objectively measured

Quote:

A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a House vote on the same net neutrality bill, and 218 votes would also be enough to pass the measure. So far, the petition has signatures from 172 representatives, all Democrats. That number hasn't changed in two weeks.

Can you realistically rule out that the solid (yet notably not complete) Democratic vote for this issue is not largely the result of partisan politics? With the current political climate, I think the vote might swing entirely the other way if Trump were to come out in favor of Net Neutrality...

I believe that only the Republicans have changed their for/against stance based on whether the other party, and specifically Obama, came out on the same side.If Obama had been against NN the Republicans would have demanded a vote on it.

Seems Republicans are for freedom until they are against it - much like states rights.

No matter who is on the ballot, the voters have no control over the legislative agenda once the election is over, the wealthy donors do.

Does it? Looking at this morning's news, a first-time challenger running on an avowedly left-wing platform who refused all corporate money, and relied on small individual donations, defeated the 4th ranking Democrat in the House in a primary, and is almost certain to go on to win the general election. This happened despite the fact that the incumbent poured millions of dollars into the race, ran TV ads, etc, and had a 10 to 1 money advantage on her thanks to big corporation donations.

Money is a megaphone and an amplifier, but it can't nullify votes unless we let it. It can drown out our voices - but only if we let it. Yes, we need to get money out of politics, but in order to do that we need to step up and make ourselves, and our votes, heard.

Edit: Oh, and if you think we have no say after the election, well, that's what the next election is for. Punish the bad behavior, and reward the good. Rinse, repeat, and the lesson will be learned. The problem in the past is that bad behavior hasn't been sufficiently punished, and in far too many cases (especially from Republicans) it's been rewarded instead via reelection.

Can you realistically rule out that the solid (yet notably not complete) Democratic vote for this issue is not largely the result of partisan politics? With the current political climate, I think the vote might swing entirely the other way if Trump were to come out in favor of Net Neutrality...

I believe that only the Republicans have changed their for/against stance based on whether the other party, and specifically Obama, came out on the same side.If Obama had been against NN the Republicans would have demanded a vote on it.

Seems Republicans are for freedom until they are against it - much like states rights.

It's astonishing to me that ostensibly intelligent people believe that phenomenon only applies to one side.

See, it only is considered good trolling when it can't be objectively measured

Quote:

A discharge petition needs 218 signatures to force a House vote on the same net neutrality bill, and 218 votes would also be enough to pass the measure. So far, the petition has signatures from 172 representatives, all Democrats. That number hasn't changed in two weeks.

Can you realistically rule out that the solid (yet notably not complete) Democratic vote for this issue is not largely the result of partisan politics? With the current political climate, I think the vote might swing entirely the other way if Trump were to come out in favor of Net Neutrality...

I believe that only the Republicans have changed their for/against stance based on whether the other party, and specifically Obama, came out on the same side.If Obama had been against NN the Republicans would have demanded a vote on it.

Seems Republicans are for freedom until they are against it - much like states rights.

It's astonishing to me that ostensibly intelligent people believe that phenomenon only applies to one side.

Good gawd. That's like comparing a distracted driver who ran into a pedestrian at a crosswalk, and a deliberate attacker who drove a truck into a crowd on purpose. "Both hit peds. Both are the same." No you idiot. Only a total moron would not understand at this point that one of the two major USA political parties is unamerican, unpatriotic, doesn't' work for people who elected them, and a danger to WORLD PEACE.

Can you realistically rule out that the solid (yet notably not complete) Democratic vote for this issue is not largely the result of partisan politics? With the current political climate, I think the vote might swing entirely the other way if Trump were to come out in favor of Net Neutrality...

I believe that only the Republicans have changed their for/against stance based on whether the other party, and specifically Obama, came out on the same side.If Obama had been against NN the Republicans would have demanded a vote on it.

Seems Republicans are for freedom until they are against it - much like states rights.

It's astonishing to me that ostensibly intelligent people believe that phenomenon only applies to one side.

Its almost like one party ran on an obstructionist platform and one obstructs terrible legislation.

Good gawd. That's like comparing a distracted driver who ran into a pedestrian at a crosswalk, and a deliberate attacker who drove a truck into a crowd on purpose. "Both hit peds. Both are the same." No you idiot. Only a total moron would not understand at this point that one of the two major USA political parties is unamerican, unpatriotic, doesn't' work for people who elected them, and a danger to WORLD PEACE.

I heartily agree, except I would change "world peace" to "human civilization." Given that our mango mussolini has "joked" extensively about how having nukes without using them is useless, and that he wants more of them.

Good gawd. That's like comparing a distracted driver who ran into a pedestrian at a crosswalk, and a deliberate attacker who drove a truck into a crowd on purpose. "Both hit peds. Both are the same." No you idiot. Only a total moron would not understand at this point that one of the two major USA political parties is unamerican, unpatriotic, doesn't' work for people who elected them, and a danger to WORLD PEACE.

Both parties fit those criteria.

That's not say that there aren't plenty of ways where the GOP is worse, but being annexed by Canada would be better than electing Dems.